From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762757AbYD0WOY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:14:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751468AbYD0WOQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:14:16 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:60972 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751447AbYD0WOQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:14:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4814FAA0.8060705@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:13:52 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley CC: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Breakage caused by unreviewed patch in x86 tree References: <1209329485.3801.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4814F76B.8030505@zytor.com> <1209334212.3801.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1209334212.3801.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 15:00 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> James Bottomley wrote: >>> I might add that the intel SAPIC functions >>> in roughly the same manner, so this might break more than just voyager. >> Are you referring to the IA64 SAPIC here, or something else? The only >> mention of SAPIC in the x86 tree appear to be naming of fields in ACPI >> tables. > > Yes, that's the one ... but I believe a class of the xAPICs also used a > similar principle. I certainly have never seen a system on which the APIC has been mapped cacheable. I would be very interested in the details, so if you could elaborate that would be extremely useful. -hpa